Jump to content


The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread


  • Please log in to reply
6015 replies to this topic

Macabe #6001 Posted Mar 19 2015 - 19:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 9166 battles
  • 7,267
  • [95TH] 95TH
  • Member since:
    04-28-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 19 2015 - 10:08, said:

Oh, solved it. Once I figured out how to move the observation tower, it was all downhill from there.

 

Myst is a great game, sadly there's one part where it requires you to depict tones.... I'm tone deaf. Didn't end well. Out of compulsive need to complete the game I bought a walk through booklet. :) Did you try Riven?

Captain_Basil #6002 Posted Mar 20 2015 - 20:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18671 battles
  • 40
  • [ERAD] ERAD
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011

Eh Chieftain, was looking back at your excellent IS7 video and you noted the lower frontal plate is ~100-120mm thick. In game though it's represented as 150mm.

 

The spaced side armor is likewise a curiosity, represented as 30mm  in game despite appearing much thinner in your video tour.

 

Is there a reason for the difference, or is it something WG might look at?



shapeshifter #6003 Posted Mar 20 2015 - 23:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17733 battles
  • 2,329
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostCaptain_Basil, on Mar 20 2015 - 14:03, said:

Eh Chieftain, was looking back at your excellent IS7 video and you noted the lower frontal plate is ~100-120mm thick. In game though it's represented as 150mm.

 

The spaced side armor is likewise a curiosity, represented as 30mm  in game despite appearing much thinner in your video tour.

 

Is there a reason for the difference, or is it something WG might look at?

 

Applies to the IS-3 as well and the Object 704.

Daigensui #6004 Posted Mar 21 2015 - 14:49

    Major

  • Wiki Staff
  • 20532 battles
  • 23,213
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostCaptain_Basil, on Mar 20 2015 - 12:03, said:

Eh Chieftain, was looking back at your excellent IS7 video and you noted the lower frontal plate is ~100-120mm thick. In game though it's represented as 150mm.

 

There were several IS-7 models.



The_Chieftain #6005 Posted Mar 21 2015 - 20:06

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 6439 battles
  • 7,760
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The Super Pershing re-work is getting a lot of attention recently, I've noticed. I'm afraid I'm partially to blame, I decided to get myself involved, and the whole thing has expanded over not just the T26E4, but also we're looking at the M26 and M46 as well while we're at it (and why not? It's all the same hull, more or less). Part of the problem has been that the official figures we have to hand, such as Hunnicutt and Ordnance descriptions, basically result in a nerf. And, contrary to popular belief, we really don't like to nerf premium vehicles. On the other hand, we're also trying as hard as possible to 'fix' any errors which may exist in a model, let the chips fall as they may. The catch is that although we have information from some Ordnance Branch documents, from which Hunnicutt worked, we have other fairly reputable sources which say otherwise, not least the official figures 'look' wrong. To the point that I was down at an M26 earlier this week with an inclinometer trying to figure out just what the heck is going on and, sure enough, the Hunnicutt figures don't match with the real tank. This isn't so huge a surprise, as the Ordnance Form 50s he mainly worked from are basically quick reference sheets, not engineering specifications or test reports, and it wouldn't be the first time we've discovered that they're wrong. But you can imagine the confusion going on with the models when the modellers are trying to parse incorrect figures with photographs and what they can glean from other sources, with few people agreeing on what's 'right.' In this case, we picked up on the discrepancy a little late, which is why the Super P is getting the public attention. We've still a little work to do, we'll get it right.

shapeshifter #6006 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 05:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17733 battles
  • 2,329
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

Even more things Hunnicutt got wrong :(

 

That's a few tanks and even guns he has wrong. shame



Legiondude #6007 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 05:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 14954 battles
  • 18,751
  • [ELVIS] ELVIS
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postshapeshifter, on Mar 21 2015 - 22:08, said:

Even more things Hunnicutt got wrong :(

 

That's a few tanks and even guns he has wrong. shame

Got a list?



shapeshifter #6008 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 06:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17733 battles
  • 2,329
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostLegiondude, on Mar 21 2015 - 23:12, said:

Got a list?

 

I know he has errors with all of the T1/M6 tanks

With the T29/T30 tanks

with the 3-inch gun

with the 105mm T5E1/2 guns

 

And now according to the chief the M26/M46 tanks.

 

Willing to bet if we looked closely enough at all the other tanks he will have errors as well.



Dominatus #6009 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 16:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10305 battles
  • 13,235
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
What did he get wrong about the T29/T30?

Legiondude #6010 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 16:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 14954 battles
  • 18,751
  • [ELVIS] ELVIS
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDominatus, on Mar 22 2015 - 09:01, said:

What did he get wrong about the T29/T30?

Well there was the mantlet issue

 

And Shapeshifter has been looking at those tank's ordnance stats recently



LegioCI #6011 Posted Mar 22 2015 - 17:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17180 battles
  • 424
  • Member since:
    03-22-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 21 2015 - 20:06, said:

To the point that I was down at an M26 earlier this week with an inclinometer trying to figure out just what the heck is going on and, sure enough, the Hunnicutt figures don't match with the real tank.

 

What does the actual armor angle look like compared to Hunnicutt/In-game? (Assuming they went with the Hunnicutt/Ordnance Form information as the basis and didn't attempt to just eyeball it from photographs.)



tmaco #6012 Posted Mar 25 2015 - 01:23

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6632 battles
  • 24
  • [-GSG-] -GSG-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

Hi Chieftain,  how come after all your research on the AC Sentinals it is the Challenger who dose a video starting with him leaning on one?

Any chance the AC iv tier 6 premium will be soon replacing one of the limited mm premiums being removed atm?



The_Chieftain #6013 Posted Mar 25 2015 - 16:22

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 6439 battles
  • 7,760
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The Asian office requested that he go out do the video, there was nothing more to it than that.

Last I checked, Sentinels were still planned as premiums, but I'm nit sure where

StrelaCarbon #6014 Posted Mar 25 2015 - 22:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15393 battles
  • 1,595
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 21 2015 - 11:06, said:

The Super Pershing re-work is getting a lot of attention recently, I've noticed. I'm afraid I'm partially to blame, I decided to get myself involved, and the whole thing has expanded over not just the T26E4, but also we're looking at the M26 and M46 as well while we're at it (and why not? It's all the same hull, more or less). Part of the problem has been that the official figures we have to hand, such as Hunnicutt and Ordnance descriptions, basically result in a nerf. And, contrary to popular belief, we really don't like to nerf premium vehicles. On the other hand, we're also trying as hard as possible to 'fix' any errors which may exist in a model, let the chips fall as they may. The catch is that although we have information from some Ordnance Branch documents, from which Hunnicutt worked, we have other fairly reputable sources which say otherwise, not least the official figures 'look' wrong. To the point that I was down at an M26 earlier this week with an inclinometer trying to figure out just what the heck is going on and, sure enough, the Hunnicutt figures don't match with the real tank. This isn't so huge a surprise, as the Ordnance Form 50s he mainly worked from are basically quick reference sheets, not engineering specifications or test reports, and it wouldn't be the first time we've discovered that they're wrong. But you can imagine the confusion going on with the models when the modellers are trying to parse incorrect figures with photographs and what they can glean from other sources, with few people agreeing on what's 'right.' In this case, we picked up on the discrepancy a little late, which is why the Super P is getting the public attention. We've still a little work to do, we'll get it right.

 

*Quietly prays for the addition of the Jumbo Pershing*



Movodor #6015 Posted Mar 25 2015 - 23:13

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 14336 battles
  • 179
  • Member since:
    09-04-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 26 2015 - 01:22, said:

The Asian office requested that he go out do the video, there was nothing more to it than that.

Last I checked, Sentinels were still planned as premiums, but I'm nit sure where

 

I remember when I asked you about certain french tanks some time ago indeed in an impromptu teamspeak Q&A. Are there any tanks the general community isn't aware of but are still sitting in reserve like said french ones, the sentinels, etc?

The_Chieftain #6016 Posted Mar 26 2015 - 06:04

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 6439 battles
  • 7,760
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostMovodor, on Mar 25 2015 - 22:13, said:

 

I remember when I asked you about certain french tanks some time ago indeed in an impromptu teamspeak Q&A. Are there any tanks the general community isn't aware of but are still sitting in reserve like said french ones, the sentinels, etc?

 

Oh, yes.




7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users